Before engaging the enemy, get to know them.
Following is a brief synopsis of the Washington Times newspaper.
The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for itsconservative stance on social and political issues.
FoundingThe Washington Times was founded in 1982 by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon [1], who has said that he is the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ and is fulfilling Jesus' unfinished mission. [2][3] Bo Hi Pak, Moon's chief aide, was the founding president and the founding chairman of the board. [4] In 1996 Moon discussed his reasons for founding the Times in an address to a Unification Church leadership conference, saying "That is why Father has been combining and organizing scholars from all over the world, and also newspaper organizations, in order to make propaganda." [5] In 2002 Moon said: "The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God" and "The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world." [6]At the time of the Times' founding Washington had only one major newspaper, the Washington Post. Massimo Introvigne, in his 2000 book The Unification Church, said that the Post had been "the most anti-Unificationist paper in the United States." [7] Former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and neo-conservative journalist David Frum, in his 2000 book How We Got Here: The '70s, wrote that Moon had granted the Times editorial independence. [8]In 1998 Scott McLemee commented: “During the '70s, media coverage of the Moonies aroused tremendous public anxiety. Then they launched the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper that pretty much printed Reagan administration press releases under a reporter's byline. Suddenly you didn't hear very much about the sinister Unification Church anymore. Good business practices—like buying Utah real estate when it was cheap, or giving the Republicans a newspaper of their own—can bring a cult into the mainstream with alacrity.” [9][edit]FundingThe Washington Times has lost money every year that it has been in business. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion subsidizing its operation of the Times. [10] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times" [11]. In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times. [12] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Times as a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive." [13]
Political leaningsThe political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative. [24][25][26] The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post." [6] In 1994 Reed Irvine, chairman of Accuracy in Media, a conservative media watchdog group, said: "The Washington Times is one of the few newspapers in the country that provides some balance." The Times was read every day by President Ronald Reagan during his terms in office. [27] In 1997 he said: The American people know the truth. You, my friends at The Washington Times, have told it to them. It wasn't always the popular thing to do. But you were a loud and powerful voice. Like me, you arrived in Washington at the beginning of the most momentous decade of the century. Together, we rolled up our sleeves and got to work. And—oh, yes—we won the Cold War. [28]
Commentator Paul Weyrich has called the Times an antidote to its liberal competitor: The Washington Post became very arrogant and they just decided that they would determine what was news and what wasn't news and they wouldn't cover a lot of things that went on. And the Washington Timeshas forced the Post to cover a lot of things that they wouldn't cover if the Times wasn't in existence. [29]
In 1999 the Times was criticized by the Daily Howler for misquoting vice-president Al Gore. [30] In 2000 the Howler criticized the Times again, this time for making unsubstantiated allegations about Gore's campaign fundraising. [31] In 2004 the Howler criticized a Times' front page story which made fun of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry's vacationing in France. [32]In 2002, the Times published a story accusing the National Educational Association (NEA), the largest teachers' union in the United States, of promoting teaching students that the policies of the United States government were partly to blame for the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. [38] This was denied by the NEA and by other commentators. [39][40]In 2007, Mother Jones said that the Times had become "essential reading for political news junkies" soon after its founding, and quoted James Gavin, special assistant to Bo Hi Pak: - We're trying to combat communism and we're trying to uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values. The Washington Times is standing up for those values and fighting anything that would tear them down. Causa is doing the same thing, by explaining what the enemy is trying to do.[41]
- There is even a daily newspaper—the Washington Times—published strictly for the movement’s benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries.[42]
- With its conservative editorial bent, the paper also became a crucial training ground for many rising conservative journalists and a must-read for those in the movement. A veritable who’s who of conservatives — Tony Blankley, Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Larry Kudlow, John Podhoretzand Tony Snow — has churned out copy for its pages.[43]
|
What do you think?
Looks like a propaganda machine, doesn't it?
The Washington Times is nothing more than a rag financed by religious extremists and political reactionaries. In the following article, I can hear Andrea Lafferty's hate speech and fear tactics distorting the facts. Hell, she may have been the author.
FACTS: - There are a very small number of Transgender people who teach.
- The verbiage in ENDA says nothing about removing a Transgender person from a classroom. As a matter of fact, all schools will continue to have the right to move a person to any classroom they choose.
- ENDA simply states a Transgender person cannot be fired because they are Transgender.
- ENDA further states a person cannot be fired because being Transgender might interfere with a person's spiritual beliefs.
- Being a Transgender person is not a lifestyle. It is a proven fact and recognized by the AMA and APA that there is no choice in being Transgender and it is far healthier for the individual and those around them if the person lives their authentic life.
Shame on them.
It appears they have no conscience. But what can one expect from those who chose to discriminate!
EDITORIAL: Discrimination is necessary Subjecting kids to weirdos undermines standards of decency
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
First-graders should not be forced into the classrooms of teachers undergoing sex changes. Religious broadcasters and faith-based summer camps should not be forced to hire cross-dressers.
Women should not be forced to share bathrooms with people with male body parts who say they want to be females. Yet those are some of the likely results if Congress passes H.R. 3017, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is due for a vote this week by the House Education and Labor Committee.
ENDA purports to "prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." Clever politically correct wording aside, this is a direct attack on common sense. On some matters, it is good to be discriminating. It is right to discriminate between honesty and dishonesty, between politeness and impoliteness, between right and wrong. And it assuredly is right to be discriminating in choosing who teaches our children. ENDA would make it impossible for a non-church-based charter school, for instance, to remove from the classroom a "she-male" who insists on exposing her pupils to her unnatural transformation.
This is no idle threat. ENDA would supersede the laws of 38 states that do not have laws treatingthose with an unusual "gender identity" as a legally protected "class" of citizens. Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition wrote in the April 20 edition of Roll Call about several examples of cross-dressing or sex-changing teachers who claimed protections under state disability laws (in the 12 states that do indeed protect "gender identity") and were able to remain in the classroom despite parents' protests. Perhaps the worst was at California's Foxboro Elementary School, where a music teacher underwent surgery to become a man, but parents originally were not even notified because administrators feared running afoul of medical privacy laws.
Even if California wants to be so foolish, the residents of the 38 states without such absurd legal strictures shouldn't be forced to do the same. States have a sovereign right to set standards governing behavioral - as opposed to immutable - personal characteristics.
ENDA does provide supposed exemptions for churches and church-based schools to refuse to employ sex-changers and cross-dressers. But the exemption is far less than meets the eye. Even religious organizations, under the standards cited, are prohibited from making employment decisions based on the worker's sex. ENDA opponents rightly cite last year's 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals note in Prowel v. Wise Business Forms that "the line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination 'because of sex' can be difficult to draw." In short, courts easily could decide that even parochial schools must hire she-males to teach their kindergartners.
Similar problems abound in this bill, which treats a conscious decision to choose a new or different sexual identity as if it were an inherent, unavoidable condition. But it's not. It's actually a psychological disorder, officially listed as such by the current American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Our children and our co-workers should not be forced by law to be held hostage to such disorders, nor should employers be forced to have psychologically troubled persons as the public face of their businesses.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment